Describe one registry name

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Describe' verb is consistent with those, so there is no contradiction. The description adds value by disclosing what the describe output covers (type classification, public ops, digest), but it does not cover error behavior or edge cases such as unknown names.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the core purpose and output categories are front-loaded, followed by the single invocation note. Every phrase earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return categories (live/stub/local_only, public ops, digest). It is slightly incomplete on what 'public ops' means and what happens for unrecognized names, but these are minor gaps given the tool's low complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does provide the key disambiguation: 'Argument: name or slug' tells the agent the two parameters are alternatives. However, it gives no format guidance or examples for what constitutes a valid name versus a slug, leaving the agent to guess.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Describe'), a specific resource ('one catalog name'), and enumerates the returned information ('live vs stub vs local_only, public ops, digest'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like fraggate_list by scoping to a single name, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The singular scope ('one catalog name') implies this is for inspecting a single registry entry rather than listing, verifying, or calling, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The 'Argument: name or slug' note is invocation detail, not usage selection guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.